I think it's pretty obvious that our country is moving towards de facto, if not outright, tobacco prohibition. It's increasingly a crime to smoke in most public places (even if those "public" places are actually privately owned), several states have banned smoking in your car if there's a child riding with you, and a few cities have outlawed smoking in your own home. A Zogby Poll commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance in October 2006 found that 45 percent of Americans would support a federal ban on cigarettes within the next five to ten years. That percentage rises to 57 percent among 18 to 29-year-olds. (DPA's Ethan Nadelmann makes a case against tobacco prohibition here. DPA's Tony Newman details his struggle with nicotine addiction here.)

What has gone largely unnoticed is the move towards de facto alcohol prohibition. It started with imposing high taxes on alcohol to deter people from drinking too much, but soon moved into banning the sale of certain types of alcohol in certain neighborhoods (hint: we're not talking about banning expensive wine in rich neighborhoods). Now we see judges and policymakers across the country trying to prohibit people on parole or probation from drinking, even if their underlying offense had nothing to do with drinking. If fully implemented, more than five million Americans would be barred from even having a beer. For instance, Montana's Department of Corrections is trying to prohibit all people on parole or probation from drinking, gambling or using medical marijuana.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California recently ruled, however, that federal judges cannot prohibit probationers from drinking if their underlying offense had nothing to do with alcohol. The Ninth Circuit covers Montana, California and several other states, but it's unclear what impact their ruling will have on state-level probation policies. Still, the decision really hits the nail on its head:

"Moderate consumption of alcohol does not rise to the dignity of our sacred liberties, such as freedom of speech, but the freedom to drink a beer while sitting in a recliner and watching a football game is nevertheless a liberty people have, and it is probably exercised by more people than the liberty to publish a political opinion," wrote appeals court judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld.

Of course, I would argue that consumption of alcohol (and other drugs) does rise to the "dignity of our sacred liberties. " The right to put whatever you want into your own mouth is every bit as important as the right to say whatever you want. Getting drunk and talking your friend's ear off is as American as apple pie.

For more on the rising neo-prohibitionist movement I recommend David Harsanyi's recent article in Reason Magazine, entitled "Prohibition Returns! Teetotaling do-gooders attack your right to drink."

Labels: Alcohol, Bill Piper, Smoking